The turning point of transparency: trade‑secrecy claims and the restriction of RAIS database
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36428/revistadacgu.v18i33.996Keywords:
trade secrecy, open government, privacy, access to information requests, critical hermeneuticsAbstract
Open government data policies seek to promote transparency, innovation, and public accountability, yet their implementation increasingly collides with expanding claims of trade secrecy. Although the literature identifies multiple barriers to data openness, little is known about how trade‑secrecy arguments emerge in administrative practice to restrict access to datasets that were previously public, and how early challenges to such arguments expose inconsistencies in their application. This study examines the interpretative shift through which the Brazilian Ministry of Labor and Employment (MTE) began denying access to the historically open Annual Social Information Report (RAIS) database on the grounds of trade secrecy. Adopting a critical hermeneutic approach and an iterative analysis of six Access to Information Requests (AIR) submitted between 2023 and 2025, the article investigates the justifications advanced throughout the successive administrative appeal levels. The findings show that the trade‑secrecy rationale was introduced without technical substantiation, foreseeable harm assessment, or consultation with specialized agencies, and that the first challenges to this shift revealed significant internal inconsistencies. These results highlight how secrecy claims reshape transparency practices and raise broader concerns for the stability and credibility of Brazil’s open data policy.
Downloads
References
Borgesius, F. Z., Gray, J., & Van Eechoud, M. (2015). Open data, privacy, and fair information principles: towards a balancing framework. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 33(3), 2073–2131. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z389S18
Brazil. (1940). Decree-Law no. 2,848, of December 7, 1940 (Brazilian Penal Code). https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/del2848.htm
Brazil. (1996). Law no. 9,279, of May 14, 1996 (Industrial Property Law). https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9279.htm
Brazil. (2002). Law no. 10,603, of December 17, 2002. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/2002/l10603.htm
Brazil. (2011). Law no. 12,527, of November 18, 2011 (Access to Information Law). https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2011/lei/l12527.htm
Brazil. (2014). Law no. 12,965, of April 23, 2014 (Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights). https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/l12965.htm
Brazil. (2016). Decree no. 8,777, of May 11, 2016. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2016/decreto/d8777.htm
Brazil. (2018). Law no. 13,709, of August 14, 2018 (General Data Protection Law). https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2018/lei/l13709.htm
Brazil. (2019). Decree no. 9,903, of July 8, 2019. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/decreto/d9903.htm
Feeney, M. K., Fusi, F., & Pezo, I. (2025). Which data should be publicly accessible? Dispatches from public managers. Government Information Quarterly, 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102008
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Hermeneutics and Social Science. Cultural Hermeneutics, 2(4), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019145377500200402
Hossain, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2016). State-of-the-art in open data research: insights from existing literature and a research agenda. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1–2), 14–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1124007
Katyal, S. K. (2019). The paradox of source code secrecy. Cornell Law Review, 104(5), 1183. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol104/iss5/2
Kempeneer, S., Pirannejad, A., & Wolswinkel, J. (2023). Open government data from a legal perspective: an AI-driven systematic literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101823
Kulk, S., & Van Loenen, B. (2012). Brave new open data world? International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 7, 196–206. https://doi.org/10.2902/1725-0463.2012.07.art10
Mabillard, V., Esposito, G., Cicatiello, L., Gaeta, G. L., & Pasquier, M. (2024). Barriers to freedom of information: insights from an experiment in Belgium. International Journal of Public Administration, 48(8), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2024.2378329
Mortent, C. J. (2023). Publicizing corporate secrets. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 171(5), 1319–1404. https://doi.org/10.58112/plr.171-5.2
Myers, M. D. (2004). Hermeneutics in information systems research. In J. Mingers & L. Willcocks (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems (pp. 103–128). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Mylly, U. M. (2024). Trade secrets and the Data Act. IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55(3), 368–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01432-0
Possamai, A. J., & Souza, V. G. de. (2020). Transparência e dados abertos governamentais: possibilidades e desafios a partir da Lei de Acesso à Informação. Administração Pública e Gestão Social, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.21118/apgs.v12i2.5872
Ribeiro, É. B. Q., & Machado, B. A. (2019). Transparência máxima: as restrições ao direito de acesso a informações no Brasil, Chile e México. Revista de Informação Legislativa: RIL, 56(222), 215–234. http://www12.senado.leg.br/ril/edicoes/56/222/ril_v56_n222_p215
Rudmark, D., Lindgren, R., & Schultze, U. (2024). Open data platforms: design principles for embracing outlaw innovators. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 33(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101850
Schmidt, J. J. (2024). Live archives: Freedom of information requests as political methodology. Canadian Geographer. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12922
Stewart, D. “Chip,” & Sanders, A. K. (2019). Secrecy, Inc.: how governments use trade secrets, purported competitive harm and third-party interventions to privatize public records. The Journal of Civic Information, 1(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.32473/joci.v1i1.115657
Tejedo-Romero, F., & Araujo, J. F. F. E. (2025). The influence of organizational resources and administrative processes on the quality of Brazilian open data. Information Technology for Development, 31(4), 1336–1373. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2025.2484616
van Loenen, B., Kulk, S., & Ploeger, H. (2016). Data protection legislation: a very hungry caterpillar: the case of mapping data in the European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.002
Varadarajan, D. (2021). Business secrecy expansion and FOIA. UCLA Law Review, 68(2), 462–517. https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2021/11/Varadarajan-68-2.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: design and methods (Sixth edit). SAGE.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Choenni, S., Meijer, R., & Alibaks, R. S. (2012). Socio-technical impediments of open data. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 10, 156–172. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejeg/article/view/571
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista da CGU
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Revista da CGU follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY), which allows the use and sharing of published works with mandatory indication of authors and sources. Contents published until 2019 have generic permission for use and sharing with mandatory indication of authorship and source.
We highlight some essential and non-exhaustive points related:
- The submission of the proposal implies a commitment not to submit it to another journal and authorizes if approved, its publication.
- The submission of the proposal also implies that the author(s) agrees with the publication, without resulting in remuneration, reimbursement, or compensation of any kind.
- The published texts are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the journal.
- Responsibility for any plagiarism is the responsibility of the author(s).
- The person responsible for the submission declares, under the penalties of the Law, that the information on the authorship of the work is complete and correct.
Also highlighted are the items related to our Editorial Policies, in particular on the Focus and Scope, Publication Ethics, Peer Review Process, and Open Access Policy.
